More than half a century after the UN's adoption of the International Convention on the Prohibition of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, a debate has emerged over whether to extend the Convention's protections to religious discrimination. This Article uses history to intervene in the debate. It argues that racial and religious othering were mutually co-constitutive in the colonial encounter and foundational to the making of modern international law. Moreover, the contemporary proposal to address the interplay of racial and religious othering is hardly new; iterations of that demand surfaced in the earlier twentieth century, as well. By illuminating the centrality of race-religion othering to the colonial encounter and chronicling failed attempts by Europe's “others” to secure international legal protections, this Article makes a case for crafting an attuned response in the present.

The international legal norm that prohibits forcible annexations of territory is foundational to modern international law. It lies at the core of three projects that have been central to the enterprise: (1) to settle title to territory as the basis for establishing state authority; (2) to regulate the use of force across settled borders; and (3) to provide for people within settled borders collectively to determine their own fates. Prohibiting forcible annexations is integral to each of these projects independently, and by tying them together, has had a transformative effect on the legal system as a whole. However, its significance is widely overlooked or misunderstood. Analysts have also largely failed to appreciate that it is now caught up in a broader contest over the future world order and at risk of erosion.

In the last few years, states have advanced various proposals for cooperation in the use of countermeasures. In this Article, we ask whether, and if so under what conditions, states may lawfully collaborate in the taking of countermeasures against other states. We distinguish five different types of collaboration: (1) independent but coordinated action; (2) secondment; (3) joint action; (4) aid and assistance; and (5) what we term “proxy countermeasures”—the idea of taking a measure at the request and on behalf of another state. We consider the permissibility of each, both where the acting state is itself entitled to resort to countermeasures and where it is not. We also draw attention to certain legal and policy considerations relating to, and to plausible avenues for, the development of international law.

This Article reinterprets the 1976 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) to show how it might rationally strengthen protections for the environment against intentional damage by states, particularly during armed conflict. The Article applies the orthodox rules of treaty interpretation to analyze in depth the Convention text, the travaux préparatoires, and available subsequent state practice, aiming to determine how the somewhat opaque Article II of ENMOD and its definition of “environmental modification technique” is best understood. It concludes that ENMOD has a broader potential application than it has historically been given.

One of the most important developments in international law for the protection of displaced women and girls—the implied non-refoulement obligation in the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women has received little scholarly or jurisprudential attention. This Article presents, for the first time, a doctrinal analysis of the full corpus of asylum complaints decided by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (Committee). It analyzes the early development of a prohibition on return to real, personal, and foreseeable risks of serious forms of discrimination against women; highlights critical shortcomings in the Committee's asylum practice; identifies key areas for improvement; and reflects on the Committee's as-yet-unrealized potential to contribute to international law in this area.

On December 19, 2023, the U.S. Department of State announced the geographic coordinates defining the outer limits of the U.S. continental shelf in areas beyond 200 nautical miles from the coast. For convenience, the United States—and also this Essay—refers to the portion of a country's continental shelf that is beyond 200 nautical miles from the coast as the “extended continental shelf,” or ECS. The announcement states that the United States has ECS in seven different regions which collectively amounts to approximately a million square kilometers (about 380,000 square miles).

Combine and conquer. That was the strategy of those seeking to develop an international regime to address marine biological diversity found in areas beyond national jurisdiction—areas that constitute half of the world's surface and a much greater proportion of its habitable volume. States had quite different visions for the regime. On the one hand, the European Union and other developed countries such as Australia and New Zealand wanted a conservation-oriented regime providing for the establishment of marine protected areas and setting rules for environmental impact assessments; on the other hand, developing countries wanted a resource-oriented regime that would allow them to get what they consider their fair share of the benefits of marine genetic resources and would assist them with capacity building and technology transfer. Only by combining these disparate topics in a single package was agreement possible.

For several decades, civil society has sought to impose greater responsibility on companies for cross-border social wrongs. Multiple legal subfields and initiatives have emerged to take on this work: corporate social responsibility (CSR); business and human rights (BHR); responsible business conduct codes; environment, social, and governance (ESG) standards; and corporate due diligence schemes, among them. These many projects have culminated in national legislation across a range of jurisdictions imposing reporting and compliance requirements on companies, as well as in the development of soft law standards. Despite these efforts, international treaty initiatives to create binding obligations on companies and to require them to adopt certain human rights principles have made limited progress.

The International Law Commission (ILC or Commission) held its seventy-fourth session at its seat in Switzerland from April 24 to June 2 and from July 3 to August 4, 2023, and met fully in person for the first time since the COVID-19 global health pandemic. The Commission, which has had a gender imbalance in its composition, was chaired for the first time by two successive female chairs: Nilüfer Oral (Türkiye) for the first half session; followed by Patrícia Galvão Teles (Portugal) for the second half session.